Wonderful: A man who invested millions in a snack shop on campus was "beaten to death" by the school because of the low price?
In this era of surging entrepreneurial boom, many people have dreams and enthusiasm to join the business world, hoping to achieve wealth growth through their own efforts and wisdom. However, a man in Meishan, Sichuan Province encountered a sudden "entrepreneurial Waterloo" - he invested millions to open a snack shop on campus, but the school was forced to close after only two days of opening, on the grounds that the price of goods was too low, which affected the business of other supermarkets on campus. This incident not only caused heavy losses to the merchants, but also triggered a deep reflection on the school's administrative management and market competition mechanism.
On April 28, a man in Meishan, Sichuan Province released a video, saying that he was optimistic about the potential of the student market and resolutely invested one million to open a snack shop on campus. I thought that I would be able to attract student customers with high-quality products and affordable prices, but only two days after opening, the store was forced to close by the school on the grounds that "the price of goods is too low, which affects the business of other supermarkets on campus". It is reported that the man's loss may be close to one million.
The school's response to the incident has sparked widespread controversy. The school said that the price of the snack shop was too low, which disrupted the normal order of the school market and caused unfair competition to other supermarkets. Many believe that schools should face market competition with a more open and inclusive mindset, rather than intervening in market prices through administrative means.
Behind this incident is the conflict between the school's administration and the logic of the market. On the one hand, as an educational institution, the school needs to maintain market order and fair competition on campus; on the other hand, the essence of the market economy is free competition and survival of the fittest. In this case, the school's approach was clearly contrary to the basic principles of the market economy.
First, from the perspective of market economy, price competition is one of the important means of market competition. Merchants attract consumers by lowering prices, thereby expanding their market share, which is completely in line with the laws of the market. By shutting down snack shops on the grounds that prices are too low, schools are actually interfering with free competition in the market.
Second, as a public institution, the decision-making of schools should be more scientific and transparent. In this case, the lack of openness and transparency in the school's decision-making process for closing the snack shop inevitably raises questions about the fairness and rationality of the decision.
Third, in the long run, the school's practices may have a negative impact on the market environment. If schools can arbitrarily intervene in market prices and competition mechanisms, it will discourage the innovative spirit and market vitality of merchants, and eventually lead to the distortion of market mechanisms and the inefficiency of resource allocation.
This incident has aroused widespread concern and heated discussions from all walks of life. Many people believe that the school's approach is too conservative and closed, which is not conducive to the healthy development of the market economy. They called on schools to respect the laws of the market more and provide a more open and fair market environment for businesses.